Settler colonialism in action

[rotting bones]

Were the Swiss or the French treated as third-class citizens and kicked out or killed off by brutal pogroms everywhere they lived?

No, Jews were treated as scapegoats by the Machiavellian leaders of the world, and that has to stop. In fact, I suggested:

There could be an international army that explicitly violates the sovereignty to protect minorities across the world.

On the other hand, there have been multiple genocides against Bengalis. Does that entitle us to one free genocide against someone else? Such as, say, the Buddhist minorities that Bangladesh oppresses?

Increasingly less so, as Israeli capacity ramped up -- and for that matter so did the USSR -- but that's neither here nor there. People are generally not happy with Israel being a US ally; but I don't think they'd be terribly happy with Israel and Palestine looking like Iraq in 2005 except worse.

Israelis might not like it, but I honestly think Palestinians would enjoy being a worse Iraq. It would be a step up from their current predicament.

On US settlers vs. Native Americans: I don't think anybody here disputes the genocide. Myself, I just think the analogy with Palestine just isn't working. If it fits for you, well, I still don't get why, but let's agree to disagree.

I don't think it's an analogy. I honestly don't understand how it doesn't fit the definition of colonialism: "Colonialism is the pursuing, establishing and maintaining of control and exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group of people."

My best guess is that you don't think the Jewish settlers are foreign? My definition of native is anyone who was born somewhere. Revanchism isn't usually considered legitimate, which is why I don't think Israeli citizens should be deported. By the same definition, the Zionists who originally came to Palestine were foreigners.

[Ares Land]

I don't think it's an analogy. I honestly don't understand how it doesn't fit the definition of colonialism: "Colonialism is the pursuing, establishing and maintaining of control and exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group of people."

My best guess is that you don't think the Jewish settlers are foreign? My definition of native is anyone who was born somewhere. Revanchism isn't usually considered legitimate, which is why I don't think Israeli citizens should be deported. By the same definition, the Zionists who originally came to Palestine were foreigners.

I don't think definitions always fit neatly. A foreigner is, ultimately, someone his neighbors treat as a foreigner. Jews have been, historically, foreigners everywhere. Zionism was a response to that.

Plenty of Zionists came to Ottoman Palestine or Mandatory Palestine in the 19th and early 20th century, peacefully, and bought land there perfectly legally. Jews immigrated to Palestine before Zionism, and there were Jewish communities in Jerusalem even before that.

More importantly, the Jews needed, in the early 20th century a place where they weren't foreigners -- and there was no such place on Earth back then.
Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I'm not convinced the 21st century is much more enlightened either. I have had to listen a couple of enlightening little anecdotes about Jews and money and believe me, I don't go out of my way to hear that kind of stuff.

Again, I don't think any of this excuses the Nakbah, or Israeli settlers in the West Bank, or the current Israeli exactions in Gaza.
But a situation can be one of a kind.

Now, and I know you don't think that, and I know nobody here thinks that, but I'm worried about the political implications of the world 'colonialism.' To me, the implications are that colonialism is a situation that should be remediated -- the colonizing party is foreign, the colonized party should gain independence and expel the colonizers out. You can see why I object to that, at least when it comes to Israel as a whole. (The West Bank is another matter and my position is different.)

[Torco]

yeah, antisemitism isn't a thing in the past: friends I grew up were taught to sing some nursery rhyme about, literally, "the jewish dog" being guilty for this or that, and i'm not 40 yet, and there's an active conspiracy theory in Chile about how israeli army veterans are buying up the whole of the patagonia and they're gonna turn chileans into the next palestinians.

[rotting bones]

I don't think definitions always fit neatly. A foreigner is, ultimately, someone his neighbors treat as a foreigner. Jews have been, historically, foreigners everywhere. Zionism was a response to that.

I'm also treated like a foreigner by everyone. Non-Muslims treat me like a Muslim, and Muslims treat me like an apostate. Why don't I get to kill someone?

Plenty of Zionists came to Ottoman Palestine or Mandatory Palestine in the 19th and early 20th century, peacefully, and bought land there perfectly legally. Jews immigrated to Palestine before Zionism, and there were Jewish communities in Jerusalem even before that.

You're right, the Zionists whom Einstein supported were legitimate. But most of Israel's Jewish population came in later through immigration. That is the only way it could have happened, because there's no way every Palestinian would have sold their homes and moved out in less than a century.

More importantly, the Jews needed, in the early 20th century a place where they weren't foreigners -- and there was no such place on Earth back then.

This is getting into the weeds, but I don't think it's so easy for Jews to go to Israel these days: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSGZdIBAvb4

Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I'm not convinced the 21st century is much more enlightened either. I have had to listen a couple of enlightening little anecdotes about Jews and money and believe me, I don't go out of my way to hear that kind of stuff.

There are basically no Jews in East India, so I never heard anything against Jews growing up. Nowadays, the BJP crowd is spreading conspiracy theories about George Soros. Fascism is spreading right now, while leftists sit around refusing to believe obvious facts.

Now, and I know you don't think that, and I know nobody here thinks that, but I'm worried about the political implications of the world 'colonialism.' To me, the implications are that colonialism is a situation that should be remediated -- the colonizing party is foreign, the colonized party should gain independence and expel the colonizers out. You can see why I object to that, at least when it comes to Israel as a whole. (The West Bank is another matter and my position is different.)

Is it used that way? I don't think it's controversial to say that America is a colonial nation, and the abolition of America only exists as a conspiracy theory for the right and a gotcha in leftist circles.

[Travis B.]

Now, and I know you don't think that, and I know nobody here thinks that, but I'm worried about the political implications of the world 'colonialism.' To me, the implications are that colonialism is a situation that should be remediated -- the colonizing party is foreign, the colonized party should gain independence and expel the colonizers out. You can see why I object to that, at least when it comes to Israel as a whole. (The West Bank is another matter and my position is different.)

Is it used that way? I don't think it's controversial to say that America is a colonial nation, and the abolition of America only exists as a conspiracy theory for the right and a gotcha in leftist circles.

Agreed completely.

[Ares Land]

I'm also treated like a foreigner by everyone. Non-Muslims treat me like a Muslim, and Muslims treat me like an apostate. Why don't I get to kill someone?

Where exactly did I say anything about 'getting to kill people'?

You're right, the Zionists whom Einstein supported were legitimate. But most of Israel's Jewish population came in later through immigration. That is the only way it could have happened, because there's no way every Palestinian would have sold their homes and moved out in less than a century.

And Arabs, both in Palestine and outside, were already rioting over that 'legitimate Zionism'. Doesn't excuse 1948, but it does explain a lot.

This is getting into the weeds, but I don't think it's so easy for Jews to go to Israel these days: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSGZdIBAvb4

That's more than an hour long, so you'll have to summarize this. I'm generally suspicious of Youtube videos with clickbait titles.
From what I gather it's both easy and difficult. Easy in the sense that the right of return is very real; difficult in that you still have to find a job and home.

There are basically no Jews in East India, so I never heard anything against Jews growing up. Nowadays, the BJP crowd is spreading conspiracy theories about George Soros. Fascism is spreading right now, while leftists sit around refusing to believe obvious facts.

Yes, I mean, things are even somewhat getting worse.

Is it used that way? I don't think it's controversial to say that America is a colonial nation, and the abolition of America only exists as a conspiracy theory for the right and a gotcha in leftist circles.

In the case of Israel, and given the historical prevalence of the idea that Jews should just go away somewhere? Yep. Pretty sure it's used that way.

[keenir]

I haven't come across it in 40+ years of reading, and that was enough time to find beliefs like Pelaganism and the political groups who were overshadowed by the Brother Of Jesus (Boxer era, not Herodian era) and "If you meet the Buddha, kill him."

I'm pretty sure you'll find this one if you Google it.

As it turns out, I did indeed find it in a google search...in a thread called "Settler Colonialism In Action" in a place called the PHPBB. Which I think was how The Elder on Mork And Mindy would probably spell his name.

I don't know why you randomly refuse to believe obviously true things.

A lot of times, it seems random as to what things you declare to be obviously true.

I think you have been reading things inefficiently.

0.o
Did you just accuse me of being horrible of utilizing dyslexia?

[keenir]

The 'people from elsewhere' were in Palestine because elsewhere, everybody were mostly actively trying to kill them; as it happens Israel is where the Jews originally were from. It doesn't excuse the Nakba, or the Israeli settlements in the West bank... but it's not nothing, either.

But then Europeans could have invaded places in Africa with the justification that we are are all originally from there.

By the time that it was both worked out & widely accepted that humans came from Africa, pretty much nobody wanted to bother with another colonization. (even the suggestions to found Israel in Uganda, was WW2 or earlier)

There is a difference between 'acting at times as a puppet state' and 'definitely a US (subst. Russian if you feel it appropriate) puppet state, complete with occupation force'
I'm pretty convinced the one state solution would in the long run turn out to be Mandatory Palestine, revisited.

The US sends Israel yearly funding and practically infinite weapons for their support.

Ah, but Israel is at least allowed to have people using weapons -- unlike, say, Japan. Would you say Japan is just as much of a puppet state as Israel is? If not, why not?

Were the Swiss or the French treated as third-class citizens and kicked out or killed off by brutal pogroms everywhere they lived?

No, Jews were treated as scapegoats by the Machiavellian leaders of the world, and that has to stop.

Machiavellian leaders of the world? Thats about a half step away from the old "Jews rule the world" conspiracy theory that usually ends with pogroms.

I don't think definitions always fit neatly. A foreigner is, ultimately, someone his neighbors treat as a foreigner. Jews have been, historically, foreigners everywhere. Zionism was a response to that.

I'm also treated like a foreigner by everyone. Non-Muslims treat me like a Muslim, and Muslims treat me like an apostate. Why don't I get to kill someone?

Not sure you get to object to being treated like an apostate, when you openly admit - to most people you encounter, by your own admission - that you are an apostate. (telling that many people, hyperbole or not, seems more bragging and-or rubbing-their-faces-in-it than politely informing only, say, a group of your friends)

[Torco]

but there are leaders of the world, and they are machiavellian. it's good to be skeptical of conspiracy theories and ideas what evil hath borne, but not to the point of ignoring reality.

[Ares Land]

but there are leaders of the world, and they are machiavellian. it's good to be skeptical of conspiracy theories and ideas what evil hath borne, but not to the point of ignoring reality.

Agreed; but antisemitism is probably 80% ordinary human stupidity and 20% machiavellian dealings.

While I'm here, I'd like to offer a correction/apology. I was reading up on the subject and apparently a lot of right-wing Israelis think the only way out is a one-state solution.
Right-wing Israelis being a large majority, the option seems a lot likelier than I thought.
(The idea is apparently to integrate Palestinians on the Arab Israeli model. No right of return for Palestinians of course.)
(Also, given the views of the Israeli right generally, that makes me like the idea even less.)

[keenir]

but there are leaders of the world, and they are machiavellian.

Some of the leaders are that; others are, decidedly, not.

it's good to be skeptical of conspiracy theories and ideas what evil hath borne, but not to the point of ignoring reality.

Oh I'm not trying to ignore reality...I'm simply skeptical of phrases like "machiavellian leaders of the world" from someone who seems to simaltaneously believe that all governments are incompetant at doing anything & at the same time, are hypercompetant at making life hellish (which, to my mind, is a subset of doing anything)

[Torco]

There's nothing special about that prospect, it's just plain old corruption: a leader or ruling class can be hypercompetent -at making themselves rich, at making his patrons rich, and at keeping the system stable, for example, while at the same time, the government itself remain almost entirely useless and incapable of doing anything: remember that under a corrupt enough system the government isn't necessarily composed of the *actual* decisionmakers, just of people for whom it is practical for them to appear as 'the government'. This is, uncontroversially, the case at least to some degree in the real world: regulatory capture is a real, established social phenomenon, we have plenty of evidence that it is real, that "lobbying" (buying politicians) is, if not the only force that influences lawmaking, a big one. that through agenda-setting and corporate control over the TV etcetera, common sense is shaped by the choices of various people with various agendas, sure, but all of them part of a distinct class of plutocrats.

Like... of course 5G doesn't give you covid or whatever flat earth types believe these days, but that doesn't mean we *don't* live under a distinct ruling class that enormous control control over our daily lives and that makes decisions based on *their* best interest and not ours.

Agreed; but antisemitism is probably 80% ordinary human stupidity and 20% machiavellian dealings.

I don't know man, how do you weight those? it could be the case that it's 100% of both: machiavellian aristocrats manipulating idiots. I don't know that that is the actual history of antisemitism, but the point is I'm not sure antisemitism is 80% bottom-up.

[keenir]

There's nothing special about that prospect, it's just plain old corruption: a leader or ruling class can be hypercompetent -at making themselves rich, at making his patrons rich, and at keeping the system stable, for example, while at the same time, the government itself remain almost entirely useless and incapable of doing anything: remember that under a corrupt enough system the government isn't necessarily composed of the *actual* decisionmakers,

thats splitting Government and Leaders, whereas I interpretted Rotting Bones' statements to be about both at once, rather than one or the other at any given point in time. If I am mistaken, I will gladly accept that once it is clarified by Rotting Bones.

[bradrn]

While I'm here, I'd like to offer a correction/apology. I was reading up on the subject and apparently a lot of right-wing Israelis think the only way out is a one-state solution.
Right-wing Israelis being a large majority, the option seems a lot likelier than I thought.
(The idea is apparently to integrate Palestinians on the Arab Israeli model. No right of return for Palestinians of course.)
(Also, given the views of the Israeli right generally, that makes me like the idea even less.)

Don’t fool yourself. There may be a few exceptions, but what they mostly want is a ‘one-state solution’ where Arabs are second-class citizens. If it really must be said, that’s not a sustainable solution for anyone.

[bradrn]

I’ve just been pointed to this truly excellent article by Scott Aaronson: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7845. It’s well worth a read.

[Travis B.]

While I'm here, I'd like to offer a correction/apology. I was reading up on the subject and apparently a lot of right-wing Israelis think the only way out is a one-state solution.
Right-wing Israelis being a large majority, the option seems a lot likelier than I thought.
(The idea is apparently to integrate Palestinians on the Arab Israeli model. No right of return for Palestinians of course.)
(Also, given the views of the Israeli right generally, that makes me like the idea even less.)

Don’t fool yourself. There may be a few exceptions, but what they mostly want is a ‘one-state solution’ where Arabs are second-class citizens. If it really must be said, that’s not a sustainable solution for anyone.

Agreed completely. What they want is for the "one-state reality", as it is called, to be legitimized and thus continued, rather than either a true one-state solution with Arab Israelis and Palestinians having equal rights or a true two-state solution with true Palestinian sovereignty and territorial integrity rather than the bantustans we have now.

[bradrn]

While I'm here, I'd like to offer a correction/apology. I was reading up on the subject and apparently a lot of right-wing Israelis think the only way out is a one-state solution.
Right-wing Israelis being a large majority, the option seems a lot likelier than I thought.
(The idea is apparently to integrate Palestinians on the Arab Israeli model. No right of return for Palestinians of course.)
(Also, given the views of the Israeli right generally, that makes me like the idea even less.)

Don’t fool yourself. There may be a few exceptions, but what they mostly want is a ‘one-state solution’ where Arabs are second-class citizens. If it really must be said, that’s not a sustainable solution for anyone.

Agreed completely. What they want is for the "one-state reality", as it is called, to be legitimized and thus continued, rather than either a true one-state solution with Arab Israelis and Palestinians having equal rights or a true two-state solution with true Palestinian sovereignty and territorial integrity rather than the bantustans we have now.

I’m going to quote that Aaronson article I just linked, since I agree with his response to precisely this argument:

In my experience, in the rare cases they deign to address the question directly, most anti-Zionists advocate a “secular, binational state” between the Jordan and Mediterranean, with equal rights for all inhabitants. Certainly, that would make sense if you believe that Israel is an apartheid state just like South Africa.

To me, though, this analogy falls apart on a single question: who’s the Palestinian Nelson Mandela? Who’s the Palestinian leader who’s ever said to the Jews, “end your Jewish state so that we can live together in peace,” rather than “end your Jewish state so that we can end your existence”? To impose a binational state would be to impose something, not only that Israelis regard as an existential horror, but that most Palestinians have never wanted either.

But, suppose we do it anyway. We place 7 million Jews, almost half the Jews who remain on Earth, into a binational state where perhaps a third of their fellow citizens hold the theological belief that all Jews should be exterminated, and that a heavenly reward follows martyrdom in blowing up Jews. The exterminationists don’t quite have a majority, but they’re the second-largest voting bloc. Do you predict that the exterminationists will give up their genocidal ambition because of new political circumstances that finally put their ambition within reach? If October-7 style pogroms against Jews turn out to be a regular occurrence in our secular binational state, how will its government respond—like the Palestinian Authority? like UNRWA? like the British Mandate? like Tsarist Russia?

In such a case, perhaps the Jews (along with those Arabs and Bedouins and Druze and others who cast their lot with the Jews) would need form a country-within-a-country: their own little autonomous zone within the binational state, with its own defense force. But of course, such a country-within-a-country already formed, for pretty much this exact reason. It’s called Israel. A cycle has been detected in your arc of progress.

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this conclusion. (Personally, I think his conclusion is correct, which is why I’ve always argued against this particular solution. He just puts the case better than I have.)

[Travis B.]

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this conclusion. (Personally, I think his conclusion is correct, which is why I’ve always argued against this particular solution. He just puts the case better than I have.)

My thoughts are that Israeli policy is precisely what has led us to this predicament, and continuing Israeli policy will only make things worse. Had the West Bank and Gaza not been bantustans, 7 October probably would never have happened. Bombing and starving the Gazan population to death and allowing settlers free rein to continue to kill Palestinians and take their land in the West Bank will only lead to more hatred of Israeli Jews. Hence what the Israeli gov't and the settlers are doing right now will only make resolving this problem that much harder. So if you consider the one-state solution to be a non-starter, the only option is the two-state solution ─ giving the Palestinians sovereignty and territorial integrity in their own lands separate from Israel.

If you think that the Palestinians overall, and not just some extremists, have this genocidal inclination to at the least opportunity wipe out the Israeli Jews, at least separate them so they have their own land to themselves, and evict the settlers from that land to keep them from aggravating them further.

But consider it this way ─ thirty or so years of the Troubles in Northern Ireland ─ with violence between the British and Irish Republicans lasting for more than a century before then ─ were resolved mostly peacefully, aside from a small handful of remaining dissident Republicans, and we don't see Republicans trying to wipe out the British today; so if they could reach peace, why can't the Israeli Jews and the Palestinians?

[zompist]

I’ve just been pointed to this truly excellent article by Scott Aaronson: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7845. It’s well worth a read.

Ugh. He lost me when he tells us that Israel really really needs to starve civilians to death. No, Scott, if you want to commit war crimes, you can't also complain about Hamas's war crimes.

As it happens, tonight I watched Golda, a film about the 1973 war. It made me nostalgic for a time when outsiders could root openly for Israeli against attacks from neighboring countries; also for a time when a Republican president could declare that the US was "neither pro-Arab nor pro-Israeli." (Here's a news story that recapitulates the war.)

Also notable: Meir went in four years from leading the defense against a surprise attack from Sadat's Egypt and Assad's Syria, to laughing with Sadat when he visited the Knesset in the run-up to normalization of relations. Meir seems to have had a good sense of when to fight, when to stop fighting, and when to make peace. Does any Israeli leader have that kind of flexibility today?

The tragic thing about Israel in the last decades, it seems to me, is that the leaders think it's still 1973, or 1949. There was a time when multiple nations could attack Israel and did; Israel has now made peace with its neighbors, and is threatened only by thugs and terrorists. Being tough against Egyptian armies is one thing, warring on civilians is another.

FWIW, this isn't aimed at you, Brad-- when you said this--

Don’t fool yourself. There may be a few exceptions, but what they mostly want is a ‘one-state solution’ where Arabs are second-class citizens. If it really must be said, that’s not a sustainable solution for anyone.

I agreed, and really thought you understood the problem Netanyahu has got himself into. And he's not going to get out of it by continuing the same tactics he's always used.

[bradrn]

I’ve just been pointed to this truly excellent article by Scott Aaronson: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7845. It’s well worth a read.

Ugh. He lost me when he tells us that Israel really really needs to starve civilians to death. No, Scott, if you want to commit war crimes, you can't also complain about Hamas's war crimes.

Wait, where did he say that? I didn’t see him advocating for that anywhere. (Though admittedly, other people elsewhere have drawn my attention to other things in that article I missed on first read.)

Also notable: Meir went in four years from leading the defense against a surprise attack from Sadat's Egypt and Assad's Syria, to laughing with Sadat when he visited the Knesset in the run-up to normalization of relations. Meir seems to have had a good sense of when to fight, when to stop fighting, and when to make peace. Does any Israeli leader have that kind of flexibility today?

Sadly, I doubt it. Certainly Netanyahu doesn’t, but I’m not sure any of the others are much better.